One thing that I haven’t seen discussed regarding some of these tight acting movie races, especially Actor (Ruffalo vs Fargo boys) and Supporting Actress (Roberts/Tolman), is that early on in Fargo, the first 2 episodes, there were some very violent bloody scenes that quite frankly made this anxious goreophobe mentally check out of the series as a whole early on. I lasted till episode 3 before I realized this just wasn’t for me.

I know I’m not representative of most voters as I am half crazy and a wimp lol. But when Martin Freeman bashes his wife’s skull in repeatedly with a hammer, Billy Bob shotguns a hole in a deputy’s chest, and a guy having sex suddenly has blood gushing out of his mouth after a screw driver is jammed into his neck, I think I may not be alone in tapping out early. Especially if it’s an older panel. I can handle violence, but not over the top and constant. I mean it got to the point whenever Billy Bob was on screen, I was so anxious something bad was about to happen I had to either look away or fast forward the scene which took me out of the series as a whole.

This factor won’t cost it mini-series, but when you have Ruffalo and Roberts playing such noble characters in a traditional Emmy type film, I think it could tip the race from the Fargo nominees to them.

Or not. What do I know lol. But this is a thought I am having in the final days.

^I think that the success of AHS is the most telling example in this field, because it shows that maybe they like their miniseries a little darker. I agree that it could be a factor with Thornton, but his performance is undeniably good.

I don’t understand how the nobility of Roberts’ character gives her an advantage seeing how Tomlin’s character is completely noble and arguably the only one who is on her show. That makes her stand out more IMO.

I think since voters are able to view submissions at home the demographic may be slightly younger than years past…so that helps FARGO’s cause…maybe?

Commenting here really bc I couldn’t find anywhere else yet to say this…but I don’t get why Billy Bob Thornton is leading the polls. He’s not bad by any means, but I don’t understand what’s so great about his work. Pretty much one note the whole way through, except maybe the scenes where he a dentist undercover then we see his character’s acting ability. Anyone wanna weigh in on why so many think he has this win?

That’s the type of sociopath character that tends to win awards anyway, no matter who plays the role (and the bigger name, the better). When Freeman and Tolman were basically asked to do a reinterpretation of what William H. Macy and Frances McDormand respectively did, Billy Bob Thornton is the closest to Javier Bardem of “No Country to Old Men” but more polished and self-aware.

If it’s up to me, I’d give it to Martin Freeman who was delicious in this role. His road from relatable protagonist to someone so easy to hate was almost Mini-Series equivalent of what Bryan Cranston did on “Breaking Bad” (not as deep but there was not as much time). But if it’s up to Thornton or Ruffalo, I’d go with the former. Mark Ruffalo tried and at least stayed coherent throughout the movie but didn’t come off as natural and comfortable in the role as, say, Matt Bomer.

Julia Roberts would be a worthy winner, even if a little bit uninspired. Tolman all the way.

“The Normal Heart” was overall a pretty mixed bag, especially when compared to “Fargo”. I absolutely hated the direction, intense and nearly paranoid close-ups were distracting and overdid the purpose which I presume was to underline the character’s feel of being trapped. I’d nominate Ruffalo, Bomer and Roberts, maybe Parsons but that’s about it. 4 nominations for supporting actor is only a proof that the field was fairly uninteresting this year, unlike its female equivalent where Globe nominee Janet McTeer and winner Jacqueline Bisset were not nominated.

I never thought about comparing the characters of Thornton in FARGO and Bardem in NCFOM. When I do now it is only of the charcaters, not the performances. Bardem, IMO, made that character incredibly interesting…I couldn’t wait for his return to the screen. I didn’t care so much about seeing Thornton’s sociopath in action for his performance, only to forward the story.

I agree on Freeman, he was superb and did make the role his own despite the similarities of character with Macy’s Jerry. Loved Tolman as well, her character was a little less Marge than Freeman’s was Jerry though.

That’s the type of sociopath character that tends to win awards anyway, no matter who plays the role (and the bigger name, the better). When Freeman and Tolman were basically asked to do a reinterpretation of what William H. Macy and Frances McDormand respectively did, Billy Bob Thornton is the closest to Javier Bardem of “No Country to Old Men” but more polished and self-aware.

If it’s up to me, I’d give it to Martin Freeman who was delicious in this role. His road from relatable protagonist to someone so easy to hate was almost Mini-Series equivalent of what Bryan Cranston did on “Breaking Bad” (not as deep but there was not as much time). But if it’s up to Thornton or Ruffalo, I’d go with the former. Mark Ruffalo tried and at least stayed coherent throughout the movie but didn’t come off as natural and comfortable in the role as, say, Matt Bomer.

Julia Roberts would be a worthy winner, even if a little bit uninspired. Tolman all the way.

“The Normal Heart” was overall a pretty mixed bag, especially when compared to “Fargo”. I absolutely hated the direction, intense and nearly paranoid close-ups were distracting and overdid the purpose which I presume was to underline the character’s feel of being trapped. I’d nominate Ruffalo, Bomer and Roberts, maybe Parsons but that’s about it. 4 nominations for supporting actor is only a proof that the field was fairly uninteresting this year, unlike its female equivalent where Globe nominee Janet McTeer and winner Jacqueline Bisset were not nominated.

No. If the violence factor was really a factor that alarmed voters to this extent, the larger voting body would have snubbed it for key nominations. Instead it was one of the leaders of the entire field this year. Whether the panel voters watch what they’re supposed to watch (there could be many reasons for voters not doing so; length of miniseries could be more of a factor over the violence of the opening episodes) remains to be seen. I think voters will respond accordingly to “Fargo” well Monday night.